Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting.

13 April 2007

Cognitive Dissonance

The fundycensors are at it again, with a new theory justifying their Bowdlerized versions of popular films. This time, they're asserting a new fair-use theory "justifying" their "editorial work" on otherwise offensive films. Leaving aside questions of bad lawyering  they had the opportunity to raise this theory already in the case, and are probably precluded from doing so; thus, they're probably sunk on both issue preclusion and law of the case  their theory that their private-sector censorship is "educational" is nothing more (or less) than censorship of someone else's intellectual property. And, although this article in the Chicago Tribune doesn't say so, clearly a rejection of the rule of law in favor of their idea of a "Bible-thumpers' civil disobedience privilege"... red-blooded (or, at least, red-stated) Americans that they are.

A biennial prize established in the UK for an author's body of work  think of it as the commercialized English-language-only version of the Nobel Prize for Literature  has announced a shortlist of fifteen authors. It's rather amusing, actually, to see how various MSM outlets are covering this. The BBC, for example, goes for the Joe Friday approach, while an equally short release in the Grauniad is both more publicity-oriented and subtly judgmental.

Last, and far from least, there's a story that I can't link to (it's in Salon, behind its intellectually dishonest "ad wall"), on the recent Dylan Hears a Who parody. In short, music producer Kevin Evans made up a set of six Seuss tales as if they had been sung by the 1960s Bob Dylan. Dr Seuss Enterprises llp objected, probably on the basis of the (unsound) opinion in the Dr Juice case (of which more anon). Evans has since taken down his mildly amusing parodies.

The common theme here is cognitive dissonance, and the relationship between cognitive dissonance and parody. Bluntly, the courts in the US have gotten "parody" wrong, largely by ignoring what literary theory has taught over the last hundred years concerning the interrelationship between content and context. The first item epitomizes people who try to use legalistic rationales as post hoc rationalizations for their inimical (and, IMNSHO, unlawful) activities. I wonder what a "strict constructionist" would say about their redefinition of "educational"? And would it be acceptable, to them, to apply the same method to biblical interpretation? The second item demonstrates a slightly different cognitive dissonance: The close correspondence between the ethnic/personal characteristics of the fifteen nominated authors and the ethnic/personal characteristics of what passes for a canon of late-twentieth-century literature in English. Since the third item is itself about cognitive dissonance, I don't think I need to say much more. But, of course, I will. Eventually.

The Fine Print

Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.

I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.

Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.

I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.

Blog Archive

Warped Weft

Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of the more infamous threads that have appeared here by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.

Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals

These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.

How Appealing is aimed at appellate lawyers and legal news in general. If you care about the state of the law, start here — Howard's commentary is far better balanced, better informed, and better considered than any of the media outlets. To concentrate on the US Supreme Court, don't forget SCOTUSBlog.

Some academics' blawgs with a variety of political (and doctrinal) viewpoints:

The main European IP blawg of interest remains the UK-based IPKat, on a variety of intellectual property issues, with some overlap (with a less Eurocentric view) at IPFinance

The American Constitution Society blawg is a purportedly "liberal" counterweight to the so-called "Federalist Society" (which, despite its claims, should be called "Tory Society") that has yet to establish much coherence... but maybe that's all to the good.

Approximate Views

(page impressions since the last time the server's counters were reset, at present early 2007)